SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 986
Case No. 44
Docket No. NEC-BMWE-SD-1616D
PARTIES: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
TO
DISPUTE: National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
FINDINGS:
On September 9, 1986, Claimant R. Lanning was notified to attend
a formal hearing in connection with the charge:
Violation of Amtrak's Rules of Conduct (NRPC 2525 dated 09/85) Rule
'B', which reads in part as follows:
Rule 'B' . . Safety . . Safety is of first importance in the
operation of the railroad and, therefore, is the most important
aspect of an employee's duties. Employees must understand and
comply with safety regulations and practices pertinenet to their
class or craft of employment. In all circumstances, employees
should take the safest course of action. Hazardous conditions and
conduct that may jeopardize the safety of passengers, employees,
the general public, and/or Amtrak property must be immediately
reported to the appropriate supervisor and corrected as quickly as
possible.
Employees must promptly report to the proper authority .
unusual conditions which may effect [sic] the safe movement of
trains.
Specification #1: In that on Thursday, September 4, 1986, you were
given orders as Foreman of Gang #Y-112 to spike every fifth tie on
the Atlantic City Project between Pennington-Road and Walker Street
(M.P. 22.8 to M.P. 22.1 on #1 Track).
Further, when questioned at the end of your assigned tour of duty
on this date, if same was completed, your verbal response was
positive in this regard.
The hearing was held on September 29, 1986, and as a result, Claimant
was disqualified for one year as M/W Foreman. The Organization
thereafter filed a claim on Claimant's behalf, challenging his
disqualification.
This Board has reviewed the evidence and testimony in this case,
and we find that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support
the finding that the Claimant was guilty of the offense with which he
1
was charged.
Once this Board determines that there is sufficient evidence in
the record to support the guilty finding, we next turn our attention
to the type of discipline imposed. In this case, a disqualification
for one year as a foreman was not an unreasonable, arbitrary, or
capricious penalty given the nature of the offense. Therefore, the
claim must be denied.
Award:
Claim denied.
Date:
r
eutral Member
ganization Member